Methodological Variations in Systematic Reviews of Health Economic Models
Author(s)
Beata Lukiewicz, Msc1, Konrad Gawlik, MSc1, Emilie Clay, PhD2, Mondher Toumi, Prof.3, Beata Smela, PhD1.
1Clever-Access, Krakow, Poland, 2Clever-Access, Paris, France, 3InovIntell, Paris, France.
1Clever-Access, Krakow, Poland, 2Clever-Access, Paris, France, 3InovIntell, Paris, France.
OBJECTIVES: Health economic evaluations are critical in the drug reimbursement process, as their quality significantly influences final decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) of health economic models synthesize and assess this evidence, yet inconsistencies in their methodologies may undermine their reliability. This study examines the methodologies of SRs to identify gaps and opportunities for standardization.
METHODS: A targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted using the Ovid platform with a single screening approach. Twenty SRs were selected for in-depth analysis. The analysis focus on transparency and reliability in study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, as these processes directly influence the credibility of SR findings. Data extraction was performed by a single analyst and subsequently quality-checked by a second reviewer.
RESULTS: Of the twenty SRs analyzed, 90% assessed the quality of the included models. However, only about 10% employed multiple instruments for this purpose. The CHEERS Checklist, the CHEC List, and the Drummond Checklist were identified as the most commonly utilized tools for quality assessment. Half of the SRs included at least five databases in their search process, and nearly 85% provided details of their search strategies. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) framework was explicitly defined in only 50% of the SRs. While the methodology for study selection was clearly described in most SRs, the data extraction process was detailed in merely 20%.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this TLR highlight considerable variability in the methodologies of SRs on health economic models. Standardizing methodological approaches for SRs is essential to fostering greater trust and reliability among decision-makers during the submission process.
METHODS: A targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted using the Ovid platform with a single screening approach. Twenty SRs were selected for in-depth analysis. The analysis focus on transparency and reliability in study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, as these processes directly influence the credibility of SR findings. Data extraction was performed by a single analyst and subsequently quality-checked by a second reviewer.
RESULTS: Of the twenty SRs analyzed, 90% assessed the quality of the included models. However, only about 10% employed multiple instruments for this purpose. The CHEERS Checklist, the CHEC List, and the Drummond Checklist were identified as the most commonly utilized tools for quality assessment. Half of the SRs included at least five databases in their search process, and nearly 85% provided details of their search strategies. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) framework was explicitly defined in only 50% of the SRs. While the methodology for study selection was clearly described in most SRs, the data extraction process was detailed in merely 20%.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this TLR highlight considerable variability in the methodologies of SRs on health economic models. Standardizing methodological approaches for SRs is essential to fostering greater trust and reliability among decision-makers during the submission process.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
SA68
Topic
Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Literature Review & Synthesis
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas